The role of “nice” high power distance when embedding sustainability: large Australian finance organisation case study

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Theorizes niceness as a form of normative control, contributing to institutional theory on sustainability barriers.

🏢実務担当者:Highlights specific levers (governance, incentive redesign, cross-level forums) to reduce power distance and enable sustainability voice.

🏛政策担当者:Emphasizes need for independent sustainability oversight and mechanisms to surface undiscussables, relevant to greenwashing regulation.

To better understand the role power distance plays when embedding corporate sustainability in a large finance organisation, which impacts hundreds of thousands of customers. Interpretive, qualitative, exploratory study where 24 participants from all hierarchical levels within one large Australian finance organisation (directors, managers, frontline staff) were interviewed (semi-structured). These interview transcripts were triangulated with the organisation's corporate reports and field notes. While directors espoused corporate sustainability values where anyone could speak up in their ‘nice’ organisation, subordinates reported a high power distance; this behaviour stopped subordinates asking corporate sustainability questions. Subsequently, the organisation was media-shamed for engaging in greenwashing. This study's limitations highlight opportunities for further theoretical and practical contributions. As a single-case design, findings cannot be generalised; however, their depth offers fertile ground for comparative multi-case research across finance and other purported low power-distance contexts. Future studies could examine how normative niceness interacts with structural power in organisations that espouse egalitarian cultures. Conceptually, the study contributes by theorising niceness as a moralised form of normative control that sustains silence and protects dominant financial logic, offering a transferable lens for understanding institutional barriers that inhibit the embedding of corporate sustainability. Practically, this study illuminates the organisational levers directors and senior leaders can adjust to dismantle high power-distance norms that undermine corporate sustainability. By showing how normative niceness suppresses speaking up, the findings emphasise the need for governance mechanisms that surface undiscussables, including independent sustainability oversight and structured contrarian briefings. The study also contributes practical guidance for redesigning incentive systems to reward authentic upward challenge rather than compliance. Additionally, it highlights the value of establishing cross-level forums that normalise voice, enabling psychologically safe dialogue. Collectively, these insights provide actionable pathways for embedding sustainability as a lived organisational practice. This study highlights significant social implications arising from high power distance and normative niceness within large finance organisations. When staff self-censor and uncomfortable issues remain undiscussable, risks tied to customers' financial wellbeing go unaddressed, contributing to erosion of public trust in the financial sector. Silencing subordinate voices also perpetuates inequity, as those closest to customers – often frontline staff – are least empowered to influence decisions that affect community outcomes. The persistent dominance of financial logic over corporate sustainability logic ultimately undermines societal efforts to address climate risk, ethical governance and long-term economic resilience, affecting millions who depend on responsible finance. Australia prides itself as being egalitarian; however, this research found high power distance behaviours. Normative niceness played a role in masking high power distance, which enabled financial logic. As a consequence, corporate sustainability was stymied and subordinates were silenced from raising legitimate corporate sustainability suggestions and concerns.

• semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-07-2025-0645first seen 2026-06-24 05:30:14